Armchair Generals in the power.

So just a thought, and mind you aggressive back roomers this is just a thought. And take your time to read through it.

I was thinking, we have seen plenty of armchair generals in the white house, be them secretary of defense or the president of the united states. They always seem to have the same idea when it comes to military movement, Operation (country name) (synonym for kill/freedom/genocide/U.N. patrol). Where we send in some guys in some helicopters or tanks or both and blow the crap out of our enemy and then we say good job we are still a super power, and this country is now back in the stone age.

So what do you guys think would happen if we put a... 'real' armchair general in the white house. I mean the people who play Company of Heroes and the Command and Conquer series and other RTS games, people who play CoD series and Medal of Honor series. Despite the wrong impressions this might make at first, can you think of the plus sides to how it would play out.

Say we put ten nerdy self proclaimed ACG's in the white house. I think the way they could run things it would put a boost to the American Economy and I think we would be putting less men(so to speak) in harms way. Cause I know my self. If I'm playing against a dug in enemy I wouldn't mess around with infantry or any ground options I would do flybys till there isn't anything left to hide in. I know I'm a bad example but there are more reserved people out there and just looking at the news and hearing these new operations our west point generals put into action I mediately see whats wrong with their plans and that it is a waste of time to try most.

Well... this is all my thoughts on the matter and that I could be wrong in a lot of aspects. I just want to know what you guys might think about it.

:laugh4: Awesome.

I think maybe you should read Ender's Game.

I think the limitations of computer games, and relative lack of remorse when I lose tens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of soldiers in video games would not be a good addition to American war-planning.

Plus air-power doesn't solve anything, and the real world is pretty darn complicated.

I don't think I can say such a panel would do worse at setting strategy for the American military than the current administration has been.

If those gamers went to a military college and graduated with eminent honors - all while serving diplomatic duty in no less than 10 countries and fought in combat situations for no less than 3 years... I'm all for it.

If only we could be opposed by the vanilla RTW AI....

I'd be looking for the Quickload button...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If only we could be opposed by the vanilla RTW AI....

---

Bush: Okay, Ahmadinejad, if you give us military access and maps to your nuclear factories, we'll stop economic sanctions.

Ahmadinejad: We will accept if you give us Basra.

Bush: Agreed.

Ahmadinejad, 5 minutes later: *launches missiles into *insert tiny, strategically unimportant settlement*.

these are the soft responses I thought I'd receive. lol

Tuffstuff, the guys leading our men into battle right now from behind a computer, where has it gotten us so far. 6 going on 7 years of war and 3k + dead. It seams as though the tactics of the 70's doesn't work to well anymore.

We are like in a war of attrition kinda like Vietnam, we are seeing if the American public can outlast some guys who play mind games in some unknown spot in the middle east.

Now I want you guys to play a game, go with me on this.

You're given full command of the US troops in action. You can do what ever you want short of nuclear and well... like me total genocide of a nation via air power. Now imagine the mistakes you could make(that is our current military leaders).

Take 10 of the most dominate members of the gaming community. Those who excel in RTS games with very little loss of life and who can make economies boom. Give them control of the military and see what happens. If one guy comes up with a stupid plan there are 9 others to tell him whats wrong in it. Its a lot more efficient than one guy who does guess and check with our boys in Iraq.

The problem is, every time they occupied a city they would as a matter of routine give the order to "exterminate the populace".

And then, "release the flaming pigs".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

The problem is, every time they occupied a city they would as a matter of routine give the order to "exterminate the populace".

And then, "release the flaming pigs".

---

Cor, sounds like the Met in the 80s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

these are the soft responses I thought I'd receive. lol

Tuffstuff, the guys leading our men into battle right now from behind a computer, where has it gotten us so far. 6 going on 7 years of war and 3k + dead. It seams as though the tactics of the 70's doesn't work to well anymore.

We are like in a war of attrition kinda like Vietnam, we are seeing if the American public can outlast some guys who play mind games in some unknown spot in the middle east.

Now I want you guys to play a game, go with me on this.

You're given full command of the US troops in action. You can do what ever you want short of nuclear and well... like me total genocide of a nation via air power. Now imagine the mistakes you could make(that is our current military leaders).

Take 10 of the most dominate members of the gaming community. Those who excel in RTS games with very little loss of life and who can make economies boom. Give them control of the military and see what happens. If one guy comes up with a stupid plan there are 9 others to tell him whats wrong in it. Its a lot more efficient than one guy who does guess and check with our boys in Iraq.

---

The main problem with Iraq is that the command at the highest level is politically idiotic. The problem isn't how they fight the war, the use of resources, etc., but fighting the war in the first place. It's not hard to understand - don't fight a war that has no good results on the strategic and political level. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a computer that accurately portrays this truism, but truism it is, and so common sense and obvious that I'm flabbergasted that the leaders of the most powerful country in the world can't see it.

Just wait until all the paperwork starts...

Next time, don't inhale and post please.

And while we're at it, why don't we entrust counter-terrorism to the Counter-Strike bunch? This guy would be history in no time. :smug:

https://img232.imageshack.us/img232/...nterstrxu0.jpg

I would do an excellent job in the White House with my M2TW skills.

First of all I would ask the Pope to launch a Crusade to Tehran, that way I speed up my armies movement points for the march across Europe, and my soldiers get free upkeep (no tax winging from the public). Then once I capture the city I could 'Exterminate Populace' to keep order. Of course if the economy was in trouble I could always 'Sack Settlement' and get maybe 20,000 Florins.

For any battles, I will charge my overpowered cavalry (tanks I suppose) into the Iranian infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

these are the soft responses I thought I'd receive. lol

---

How hard would you like the response to be?

Quote:

---

Tuffstuff, the guys leading our men into battle right now from behind a computer, where has it gotten us so far. 6 going on 7 years of war and 3k + dead. It seams as though the tactics of the 70's doesn't work to well anymore.

---

Hate to brust your bubble but the battle tactics of the 1970's are not being used, they were thrown out back in the 1980's after the military was reorganized not once but several times. It seems you have confused a military attack with a military occupation. Two completely different operations, first the military attack was extremely successful, three divisions with Air support completely dominating the battlefield.

Now occupation duty the United States military sucks at doing, especially when the political leadership screws the operation up from the get go. So if you wish to discuss military tactics - at least come with some base knowledge of warfighting in reality versus the computer. (Was that harsh enough for you, or do you want it a little more tougher?)

Quote:

---

We are like in a war of attrition kinda like Vietnam, we are seeing if the American public can outlast some guys who play mind games in some unknown spot in the middle east.

---

Again incorrect, a war of attrition works a bit different then the current operations in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Now I want you guys to play a game, go with me on this.

You're given full command of the US troops in action. You can do what ever you want short of nuclear and well... like me total genocide of a nation via air power. Now imagine the mistakes you could make(that is our current military leaders).

---

Again you have no concept - genocide is not accomplished via airpower, maybe some Nucs will do it, but not air power alone.

Quote:

---

Take 10 of the most dominate members of the gaming community. Those who excel in RTS games with very little loss of life and who can make economies boom. Give them control of the military and see what happens. If one guy comes up with a stupid plan there are 9 others to tell him whats wrong in it. Its a lot more efficient than one guy who does guess and check with our boys in Iraq.

---

Sorry I perfer General Petruis to remain in charge of the military operations in Iraq. He seems to have a handle on how to deal with the current situation. I rather vote out all career politicans and let new blood come into the Congress - who refused to accomplish their constitutional duty, and the Presidential office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

I would do an excellent job in the White House with my M2TW skills.

First of all I would ask the Pope to launch a Crusade to Tehran, that way I speed up my armies movement points for the march across Europe, and my soldiers get free upkeep (no tax winging from the public). Then once I capture the city I could 'Exterminate Populace' to keep order. Of course if the economy was in trouble I could always 'Sack Settlement' and get maybe 20,000 Florins.

---

I think the General chose the enslave option, having vacated all the cities except for Syria, Jordan and a few other nearby provinces (keeping governors there for that purpose), sending the Iraqi population out to them. I'm not sure why the population in Iraq is continuing to drop, but my guess is that squalor levels may be pretty high.

BTW, is there a cheat to prevent the population from rioting every turn and destroying the temples and other public order buildings you've recently repaired? It's costing a mint with little noticeable positive effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I'm not sure why the population in Iraq is continuing to drop, but my guess is that squalor levels may be pretty high.

---

I think it is obvious that the US need to build some Public Baths or maybe even an Aqueduct in Baghdad if this trend is to be reversed.

And Iraq is definitely not a war of attrition.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

The problem is, every time they occupied a city they would as a matter of routine give the order to "exterminate the populace".

---

Actually, the problem is that they choose not to exterminate, leaving the territory saddled with unrest problems for years. Troop recruitment was not a necessity in the region, so there was no need for the soft hand. Now they are stuck with devastation all over the landscape from the rebels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

these are the soft responses I thought I'd receive. lol

---

That's because we're in the 'we'll explain this slowly and politely, he's a bit simple sometimes' phase. Keep it up and I'm sure the responses will harden adequately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And while we're at it, why don't we entrust counter-terrorism to the Counter-Strike bunch? This guy would be history in no time. :smug:

https://img232.imageshack.us/img232/...nterstrxu0.jpg

---

Terrorists Win.

Does RL have an AOR system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And while we're at it, why don't we entrust counter-terrorism to the Counter-Strike bunch? This guy would be history in no time. :smug:

https://img232.imageshack.us/img232/...nterstrxu0.jpg

---

...You would entrust counter-terrorism to teamkillers?

:surrender::rifle:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, I got the sarcasm in that, Adrian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Yes, I got the sarcasm in that, Adrian.

---

Phew.. :sweatdrop:

You never know in this kind of thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

How hard would you like the response to be?



Hate to brust your bubble but the battle tactics of the 1970's are not being used, they were thrown out back in the 1980's after the military was reorganized not once but several times. It seems you have confused a military attack with a military occupation. Two completely different operations, first the military attack was extremely successful, three divisions with Air support completely dominating the battlefield.

Now occupation duty the United States military sucks at doing, especially when the political leadership screws the operation up from the get go. So if you wish to discuss military tactics - at least come with some base knowledge of warfighting in reality versus the computer. (Was that harsh enough for you, or do you want it a little more tougher?)



Again incorrect, a war of attrition works a bit different then the current operations in Iraq.



Again you have no concept - genocide is not accomplished via airpower, maybe some Nuke's will do it, but not air power alone.



Sorry I perfer General Petruis to remain in charge of the military operations in Iraq. He seems to have a handle on how to deal with the current situation. I rather vote out all career politicans and let new blood come into the Congress - who refused to accomplish their constitutional duty, and the Presidential office.

---

I only know what I've heard from my cousin and what I've read in the books my dad has. The genocide via airpower is usually how I do things in more recent modern rts games, constant strafe runs are my specialty.

The war in Iraq I believe is the perfect example of a war of attrition. The US keeps putting more resources into while the terrorist groups are in a way forcing resources into their battle. We are keeping our guys over there and maintaining a long range war where as you said, we get nothing out of it. This is how it is a war of attrition. The American people's can only take so much during a war that most don't even know where it is located on the globe. It was the same thing in Vietnam, we killed a lot and lost few(compared to the amount we killed), its just that we lost the war back home with the populace and the same thing is going to happen in this war if something doesn't change.

The general may have a handle on how to work the field but before he's allowed to do anything major he has to get permission from the ACG's here.

Also are you a vet from any war? If not you should say the same thing to yourself. The only knowledge I get about war comes from Documentaries, Interviews with family that have been over there, the masses of books I read about it, also the training I do with my brother in military tactics is about as in depth as I get with war.

Also I'm not talking about the attack, I'm talking about the tactics in general. The Current occupation is not just about politics, its also about patrol and keeping the streets safe. That is where the current military tactics fail, and that is where we need it to change.

and yes thats about as tough as I'd like this to go. Its just a thought thread with some opinionated stuff thrown in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

I only know what I've heard from my cousin and what I've read in the books my dad has. The genocide via airpower is usually how I do things in more recent modern rts games, constant strafe runs are my specialty.

---

Real life war is not the same thing. Airpower helps to defeat an enemy, but it rarely causes genocide on its own, unless of course your going to use nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

The war in Iraq I believe is the perfect example of a war of attrition. The US keeps putting more resources into while the terrorist groups are in a way forcing resources into their battle. We are keeping our guys over there and maintaining a long range war where as you said, we get nothing out of it. This is how it is a war of attrition. The American people's can only take so much during a war that most don't even know where it is located on the globe. It was the same thing in Vietnam, we killed a lot and lost few(compared to the amount we killed), its just that we lost the war back home with the populace and the same thing is going to happen in this war if something doesn't change.

---

War of attriton focus soley on destroying, now Vietnam was a combination of different strageties in the execution of that conflict, and a portion of that conflict was indeed a war of attrition. Guess what, in Iraq the forces also focus on rebuilding parts of the country. So your focusing on another issue and confusing it with a war of attrition. An unpopular war forces political reaction by the populace.

Quote:

---

The general may have a handle on how to work the field but before he's allowed to do anything major he has to get permission from the ACG's here.

---

Guess what - that is how the system was designed from the very beginning. Politicans control the military via their election into the position of power. DIfferent presidents have made different mistakes in their duties as commander in chief. Now you claim arm chair generals without understanding how American Forces are committed to a conflict. For instance I read and hear a lot of blame directed at the President for getting into the conflict - and this is rightly so, but few people direct blame to the other part of the equation (an equal part in fact) the United States Congress. Have you ever written your congressman concerning the conflict..... Guess what I have several times to include pointing out the violation of the War Powers Act of 1973 that both the President and Congress is guilty of.

Quote:

---

Also are you a vet from any war? If not you should say the same thing to yourself. The only knowledge I get about war comes from Documentaries, Interviews with family that have been over there, the masses of books I read about it, also the training I do with my brother in military tactics is about as in depth as I get with war.

---

LOL - guess what 15 years of service in the United States Army - Field Artillery, places I have been include Kuwait, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and Korea. A brother who has served 20 years in the Army and is in Iraq on his third tour. As for training been there, done that, got many NTC's under my belt and spent my last three years training Division, Brigade, and Battalion Artillery staffs on how to train and fight. Then there is the reason I was in the three countries in the Middle-east, I will let you figure out which conflict. So in other words - Arm Chair General with real life exeperience. Now if you really want to test yourself - lets talk Korea pensulia conflicts and possiblities involved. The first test would to be how many Brigade or Larger avenue's of approach are in Korea that run North to South for a North Korean attack.

Quote:

---

Also I'm not talking about the attack, I'm talking about the tactics in general. The Current occupation is not just about politics, its also about patrol and keeping the streets safe. That is where the current military tactics fail, and that is where we need it to change.

---

Tactics and stragety is indeed what I speak of. Patroling has been working under the leadership of General Petruis. Is it working well enough to be called successful, in some circles (mostly military) they want more to go on to further increase the possiblity of success. This would indicate that they believe they are seeing some postive results from their operations. The current situation in Iraq is one of Occupation, a military mission that requires constant patrolling and rebuilding of a nation that is being occupied. An occupation requires a significant amount of boots on the ground to insure the country can be pacified to a point that rebuilding can be accomplished. The adminstration and its appointed adminstrator in Iraq after the initial attack made a very crucial and very bad mistake in restoring peace to Iraq - they disbanded all of the internal Iraqi military and police forces. Not a smart move by the politicians. Ask some of the members on this board how Northern Ireland violence was reduced, if I remember correctly patrolling and interaction with the community had a lot to do with the efforts of the British in that regards. But then Northern Ireland is not a conflict I have studied all that much (and might be a reason why the United States Military has problems with occupation type duties.)

Quote:

---

and yes thats about as tough as I'd like this to go. Its just a thought thread with some opinionated stuff thrown in.

---

Just testing - I normally respond in the arguement style that is presented.

Nex, what is this war about? How would you judge it to be a win? Feel free to be as specific or as vague as you like. Also, what is the highest level of command for the war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Real life war is not the same thing. Airpower helps to defeat an enemy, but it rarely causes genocide on its own, unless of course your going to use nuclear weapons.

---

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you're efficient in your use of napalm...just saying...

Napalm has been banned by the UN I believe, as... what was it... Inhumane.

I haven't read as much into this war as past wars, and for me warfare is not something it should be, a game. A simple matter of chess, and redleg considering you have been in combat please take no offense to that statement. I have heard of the horrors from as far back as Vietnam from uncles and family friends.

Now I want to point out here what attrition warfare is: (not the best website but good for a quick def.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Attrition warfare is a military tactic in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down its enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and material. The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources.[1] The Vietnam War is typically used as the primary example of a war of attrition: American strategy was to wear down the enemy until it lost its "will to fight."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Nex, what is this war about? How would you judge it to be a win? Feel free to be as specific or as vague as you like. Also, what is the highest level of command for the war?

---

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

As for you RedLeg, field arty huh? Sounds fun what was the biggest bang for you buck when it comes to arty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

---

Your're still describing processes instead of aims. What are you trying to achieve by doing the above? Go up another level or two.

For example, could you describe what the British were trying to do in Northern Ireland? Now apply the same level of analysis to Iraq,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

I haven't read as much into this war as past wars, and for me warfare is not something it should be, a game. A simple matter of chess, and redleg considering you have been in combat please take no offense to that statement. I have heard of the horrors from as far back as Vietnam from uncles and family friends.

---

Again as I stated before - War in real life is no game - its a matter of life and death, and its an ugly business.

Quote:

---

Now I want to point out here what attrition warfare is: (not the best website but good for a quick def.)

---

Again point out where in Iraq we are attempting only to wear down the enemies will to fight?
As stated before we are also attempting to re-build Iraq into a democracy. You can disagree with the purpose of the war, you can even state we should not be there in the first place, but calling it a war of attrition requires you to actually show where it meets the definition that you have provided.

Quote:

---

This war about... Iraqi freedom, The war on terror, The war for black gold, I dont know. To me it's a stupid decision that wasn't thought through. How to win, thats something I can't help with, I don't know enough about our current military in Iraq. But If we were to go ahead and forget our pride for a bit just pull out and let other countries handle it for now. I don't know about east coast US but in Ca we have our own war going on with southern gangs moving in and northern gangs getting stronger.(This is just one small town and my neighborhood went from peaceful to a stabbing a week in only a couple months)

---

Again you have made a comment about your personal opinion on the war, nothing wrong with that at all. However you avoid demonstrating where it meets the definition of a war of attrition. I will give you a slight hint - every war entails a requirement to destroy the enemies will to fight. However to meet the requirement for a war of attrition - one must solely focus on destroying the enemy's resources, primarily its men. So can you point out operations in Iraq that focus solely on destroying the enemy fighters?

Quote:

---

But a true answer to win this war we need to purge Iraq with a serious push of troops. Send more men over there and push through every section of every city confiscating weapons and hazardous material. Once a city is clean get a guard on it and allow it to build up its own police force to protect itself then move to the next city. It will take a while and might be deadly but it will end the war for sure. After we pull out each city will have it's own police and military forces for defense and we can leave knowing we have done something instead of sit outside the cities and go in occasionally on routine patrols.

---

Read into what General Petruis is attempting to do and wants to accomplish. He is not doing something as drastic as you state, but the purpose of patrols and the current troop surge is roughly similiar to this. Again there is a general in Iraq that finally has the ability to force the adminstration to allow him to do what is required to hopefully turn the situation around so that we can at least begin to gain some ground in Iraq. Ground being meeting the objectives to turn everything back over to the Iraqi people.

Quote:

---

As for you RedLeg, field arty huh? Sounds fun what was the biggest bang for you buck when it comes to arty.

---

8" howitzer's firing direct fire.

Redleg, would the term decolonisation be an accurate description of what you're trying to do in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Redleg, would the term decolonisation be an accurate description of what you're trying to do in Iraq?

---

Not really sure. I would more call it an attempt at nation building, coupled with a few other types of operations involved with the warfighting aspect of what is going on.

I do see similiarities between the two concepts, but I lean more toward the nation building concept as being the more accurate. I guess the answer would lie in where does one place the violence that is going on in Iraq into the equation.

This was written in 2002, and applies to both Afganstan and Iraq in my opinion.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ksgpress/..._building.html

But then this is the reason I don't see Iraq as a war of attrition when one only looks at Iraq. Now if I we wanted to pursue the war of attrition arguement - it would be better served as an arguement concerning the War on Terror as the current adminstration is pursueing that concept. Even then there is areas within that label (War on Terror) that steers one away from calling it a war of attrition. But the general persecution of the war on terror might be seen as soley a war of attrition since it is dealing with attempting to remove all resources from the non national groups that pursue terror as a means.

But I await clear cut arguements concerning that particlur thesis on the war on terror.

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

---

Your forgetting that Nation Building does the same thing as decolonization, both are very similiar in nature but there are differences. Philippines was an attempt at decolonization, since it was previousily a colony of the United States. Vietnam was an attempt at several things, Nation Building being one of them also, because it was not a colony of the United States. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are all exambles of Nation Building. Japan and Germany were nation building based upon occupation of the enemy nation. THe difference is that Japan and Germany were utterly defeated by a total war before the occupation. Iraq was defeated but not in the same scope as either Japan or Germany.

Then your discounting the continued rebellions in the Phillipines that are ongoing to this day in the southern islands.

Your focused on what you believe to be correct, but you haven't demonstrated where decolonization is the correct answer nor have you demonstrated an accurate parrell.

Quote:

---

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

---

Malaya does indeed fit into both concepts of decolonization - old british empire colony - and one of nation-building. As for going into Iraq the puzzle is rather easy to figure out. It was spelled out very clearly beginning back in 1991. You can say it was the wrong course of action to pursue based upon the political complexities of that nation, the three deverse groups have been fighting for awhile even under the aspect of being a single nation state. But to claim why there was any desire in the first place is a poor position to take.

What should of happened is a complete and utter destruction of Saddam back in 1991, against the wishes of the United Nations and the collation, or when the upraisings happened in 1992. Instead the United States abandoned some worthwhile allies that might have prevented some of the events that are happening in the world today. But then hind sight is always 20/20

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your forgetting that Nation Building does the same thing as decolonization, both are very similiar in nature but there are differences. Philippines was an attempt at decolonization, since it was previousily a colony of the United States. Vietnam was an attempt at several things, Nation Building being one of them also, because it was not a colony of the United States. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are all exambles of Nation Building. Japan and Germany were nation building based upon occupation of the enemy nation. THe difference is that Japan and Germany were utterly defeated by a total war before the occupation. Iraq was defeated but not in the same scope as either Japan or Germany.

Then your discounting the continued rebellions in the Phillipines that are ongoing to this day in the southern islands.

Your focused on what you believe to be correct, but you haven't demonstrated where decolonization is the correct answer nor have you demonstrated an accurate parrell.

---

I focused on what I feel are the important points of where one is trying to head, ie. the goals. Whether the starting point is one of a formal colony, protectorate, or whatever, is less important in my view. The main aims of decolonisation - gradually letting a territory go without it going to hell from internal or external pressure, and preferably without the former colonials turning on you - are the salient points. If starting point is so important, what's the difference between starting with Iraq as a colony and starting with Iraq as a mandate, as it effectively is? Both cases, and in the even more particular case of Iraq, start out with you taking over the administration of the region, and preparing to let go under ideal conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Malaya does indeed fit into both concepts of decolonization - old british empire colony - and one of nation-building. As for going into Iraq the puzzle is rather easy to figure out. It was spelled out very clearly beginning back in 1991. You can say it was the wrong course of action to pursue based upon the political complexities of that nation, the three deverse groups have been fighting for awhile even under the aspect of being a single nation state. But to claim why there was any desire in the first place is a poor position to take.

What should of happened is a complete and utter destruction of Saddam back in 1991, against the wishes of the United Nations and the collation, or when the upraisings happened in 1992. Instead the United States abandoned some worthwhile allies that might have prevented some of the events that are happening in the world today. But then hind sight is always 20/20

---

Hang on. The ability of the Coalition to present a united front was purely because of the limited and almost universally agreed to be just aim of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Schwarzkopf made it pretty clear that, if he went any further beyond that, that united front will be no more, and then the political scene would be as it is now, with a vacuum in Saddam-less Iraq and the neighbours itching to get in on the action. How would things be significantly different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I focused on what I feel are the important points of where one is trying to head, ie. the goals. Whether the starting point is one of a formal colony, protectorate, or whatever, is less important in my view. The main aims of decolonisation - gradually letting a territory go without it going to hell from internal or external pressure, and preferably without the former colonials turning on you - are the salient points. If starting point is so important, what's the difference between starting with Iraq as a colony and starting with Iraq as a mandate, as it effectively is? Both cases, and in the even more particular case of Iraq, start out with you taking over the administration of the region, and preparing to let go under ideal conditions.

---

Then you really need to look into what determines Nation Building. Since once again the concept of Nation Building is what Afganstan is definitely defined as, and Iraq is in a similiar situation. Both countries had the ruling regime removed and a new government established, both are being rebuilt by outside resources, and both have plans for the eventual withdraw of foreign forces and aid. Both have a similiar end result - a nation that is viable and friendly.

I will leave it at that since your so determined to argue for a decolonization aspect but you have not provided any detail into that arguement, one that shows the difference between the two concepts, one that points out where decolonization is a more valid definition of what is eventual hopeful end result for Iraq. BTW you will find that both have very similiar end points.

Quote:

---

Hang on. The ability of the Coalition to present a united front was purely because of the limited and almost universally agreed to be just aim of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Schwarzkopf made it pretty clear that, if he went any further beyond that, that united front will be no more, and then the political scene would be as it is now, with a vacuum in Saddam-less Iraq and the neighbours itching to get in on the action. How would things be significantly different?

---

you wanted a reason for the current immersion into Iraq - you got it but you don't like the answer that is self-evident, based upon history. The United States has been in conflict with Iraq under Sadaam since 1990. I more then understand why we did not continue past the agreed upon conditions and in fact I agreed with them at the time, and as I stated Hind sight is always 20/20. However I did answer your initial comment.

Now why it got started in the first place was because of Oil, the key reason for Sadaams invasion of Kuwait. Or do you want to delve deeper into history then the last 20 years?

Now how would things be different. The primary one being that the United States honored its word to the Shite in Basara. Or are you forgetting that little bit of history, where the United States stated a few promises to those people in that area of Iraq? Would that lessen the impact of some of the extremists - who knows for sure, but I would think that honoring one's word would have had a significan impact, and would of done some good in the long run. Would the other groups still have used violence against the establishment of a new government - most likely, but then again at least two of the groups would have had a significant amount of trust toward the United States given that we honored a committment that we initially implied toward them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

you wanted a reason for the current immersion into Iraq - you got it but you don't like the answer that is self-evident, based upon history. The United States has been in conflict with Iraq under Sadaam since 1990. I more then understand why we did not continue past the agreed upon conditions and in fact I agreed with them at the time, and as I stated Hind sight is always 20/20. However I did answer your initial comment.

Now why it got started in the first place was because of Oil, the key reason for Sadaams invasion of Kuwait. Or do you want to delve deeper into history then the last 20 years?

Now how would things be different. The primary one being that the United States honored its word to the Shite in Basara. Or are you forgetting that little bit of history, where the United States stated a few promises to those people in that area of Iraq? Would that lessen the impact of some of the extremists - who knows for sure, but I would think that honoring one's word would have had a significan impact, and would of done some good in the long run. Would the other groups still have used violence against the establishment of a new government - most likely, but then again at least two of the groups would have had a significant amount of trust toward the United States given that we honored a committment that we initially implied toward them.

---

When I asked why, I know the reasons given, but I was looking for sensible reasons, of which I saw none. I'll concede your last point though - the US had a good rep back then, principally in comparison with the far less desirable Soviet Union, but also as a country that tries its best, even for others.

Also, I'll offer what I think is the main difference between nation-building and decolonisation. Nation-building does not set the handover as the main goal, but the reconstruction or construction of a country. Decolonisation does nation-building as part of the overall drive towards the handover. I don't think any US government has the political capital to do the former in Iraq, even if you can afford it. Therefore the latter is the best you can realistically do. Correct me where I'm wrong, in either the difference between the two, or my conclusion drawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Also, I'll offer what I think is the main difference between nation-building and decolonisation. Nation-building does not set the handover as the main goal, but the reconstruction or construction of a country. Decolonisation does nation-building as part of the overall drive towards the handover. I don't think any US government has the political capital to do the former in Iraq, even if you can afford it. Therefore the latter is the best you can realistically do. Correct me where I'm wrong, in either the difference between the two, or my conclusion drawn.

---

Iraq is a reconstruction. Just like Germany and Japan. Handover back to the nation after recontruction also happened in both Germany and Japan.

Except in this case, there never really was a nation in the first place to hand it back to. Bit of difficulty ensues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Except in this case, there never really was a nation in the first place to hand it back to. Bit of difficulty ensues.

---

Incorrect - claiming Iraq was not a nation fails when reviewed. You can claim several things about Iraq, but saying it was not a nation is not one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Iraq is a reconstruction. Just like Germany and Japan. Handover back to the nation after recontruction also happened in both Germany and Japan.

---

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

---

You would be incorrect. Germany and Japan were initially occupied to insure they remain defeated. It helped that they were on the brink of destruction at the end of the war, but troops were initially garrisoned as occupation forces.

Quote:

---

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country?

---

[/quote]

The aim should be to fix what we broke, we have an obligation toward that end. Regardless of how you feel about the conflict or the reasons behind it, the moral obligation remains.

Quote:

---

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country

---

It is obvious that a third world country, because it would be a threat for freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

---

I lack the total number, but the US occupied part of Germany (with a population of 2/3 of Iraq) had around 200k men 1946-1950 (increases after that due to the cold war and North Korean invasion) and that was still about 2/3 of the recommended number (low need and requests to bring the boys home were the reasons here).

Following those recommendations would give around 400k troops in Iraq.

America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

---

That does not necessarily discount the fact that intially the troops were occupation forces. One can argue when the occupation turned into defense because of the Cold War. I normally go with the position that the American Forces occupied Germany until the middle of 1946, somewhere around June-August of 1946 I believe the joy of the war being over began to be outweighed by the percieved threat of the Soviet Union. If I remember my history right the Cold War is generally given a start year of 1946.

Now one could argue given the nature of the British and Russian zones that Germany was occupied for a bit longer then 1946.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

---

But that is only relevant after 1950 (well the US started to push for it 1949), the calculations and troop numbers did not take that into serious consideration before that. And as expected that number rised considerbly after that.

Officially Western Germany (and Eastern for that matter) didn't exist until 1949 and was occupied until 1955. The Cold War messes up the troop number left after the occupation officially ended though.

Was public order a severe problem in Germany immediately after the war? It certainly could not have been as bad as post-invasion Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Was public order a severe problem in Germany immediately after the war? It certainly could not have been as bad as post-invasion Iraq.

---

IIRC the total occupation force at the end of the war was 1:6 aka 1 soldier per 6 civilians (not certain, I've probably seen it in a book somewhere). Of course that number decreased rapidly during the first year.
The American forces were 1,6 millions.

If you got problems with public order from a country suffering from massive war fatigue with those numbers, then you really need to ask yourself what your troops are doing.

And that goes into one important aspect of occupation and that is to keep enough troops to prevent problems to show up in the first place.

One problematic aspect with Iraq and Germany is that in Iraq there's been failures on several aspects that were successful in Germany, which prevents problems from the start. To put it in MTWII terms, if you got severe public disorder in a ocupied city garnisioned by 100 men, while that city that got exterminated (MTW is a bit lacking the how to run an occupation aspects so this is the closest in MTWII terms I guess) and is garnisioned by 2000 men, can you fully compare civil disorder?

Some predicted problems that Iraq has been worse compared to Germany though:
Secterian violence
Less war fatigue
Less cultural difference

Germany was on the other hand worse in:
Sheer destruction
More refugees
Getting defeated and occupied instead of ~liberated= your troops are less popular.

Major screwups in Iraq that might not by itself be problematic enough, but combined:
Too few boots on the ground
Corrupted rebuilding
Destruction of bureacracy (de-Baathification taken too far, too quickly)
Higher up priority screwups (lack of maintaining civil order early on, Abu Ghraib, and more)

Wouldn't the top 10 players of RTS games simply have fast reaction time and an excellent memory for hotkeys?

Press "h" to call a council of tribal leaders.

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

They won't be good, because they will waste real soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

They won't be good, because they will waste real soldiers.

---

In games like World in Conflict, I always do my very best to keep my soldiers alive because of the amount of time it takes to train new ones - by the time they're done, you could have lost your advantage. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

In games like World in Conflict, I always do my very best to keep my soldiers alive because of the amount of time it takes to train new ones - by the time they're done, you could have lost your advantage. ~;)

---

In other games (C&C) it takes seconds to create new ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

But that is only relevant after 1950 (well the US started to push for it 1949), the calculations and troop numbers did not take that into serious consideration before that. And as expected that number rised considerbly after that.

Officially Western Germany (and Eastern for that matter) didn't exist until 1949 and was occupied until 1955. The Cold War messes up the troop number left after the occupation officially ended though.

---

The US Army agrees with you about the end of "Occupation" being May 1955. See wiki article re: Army of Occupation Medal. Berlin city itself garnered the Occupation Medal until October, 1990.

So, I think we can glean from that, that 'occupation to insure public order and prevent resurgence of internal military threats' lasted from May '46 to May '55. Then, 'occupation to prevent invasion from outside forces', gradually turning into 'partnership with local defense forces to prevent invasion from outside forces', spanned the period 1955 through 1990.

If we posit that the US experience in Germany (with its 44 years of varying levels of 'occupation/partnership') sets a precedent, it bodes poorly for any plans to quickly depart Iraq or Afghanistan.

That makes me sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

That makes me sad.

---

Why? The USA is still in Germany, it's not doing any harm.